×
RE: THE TABLE. In case I was unclear, I agree with the other Klein. If Iran, say, attacks America, then yes, all options are "on" the table. But I think the possible outcomes of us going to war with them are much worse than the outcomes of them developing nukes. So war shouldn't be on the table regarding their nuclear program. I don't think we, as a country, have the moral standing to militarily dictate who does and does not develop weapons, and the drawbacks to trying to do so would be immense. Also, I think Atrios does a good job making explicit what I didn't. The very formulation of "all options on the table" is a threat. "We don't hear leaders saying, "we hope to come to a trade agreement with El Salvador, but until we do all options are on the table," because we're not trying to threaten them with war...If Bush is interested in war then the impact of a bunch of presidential candidates throwing out threats of war is to validate that view." In fact, this is a very simple question. "Would you go to war to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?" I'm hearing a lot of folks say (but not convincingly argue) that diplomatically they need to retain that freedom. But this is not an abstract issue, and we voters have a right to know whether the announcement of Iranian nukes would trigger a military response or not. It's sort of an important policy choice, and it's a little odd that we're allowing them so much latitude on the question. I assume it's because we believe that the answer, deep down, is "no," but I'm not sure that that's always a safe assumption.--Ezra Klein
